By: Derek Kreymer
Crucial 7 Chain of Custody Failures in the Karen Read Trial
The Karen Read murder trial exemplified how chain of custody failures can fundamentally undermine a prosecution’s case. As noted by the Hub Investigative Group, “Chain of custody stands as one of the most fundamental yet often underappreciated aspects of any investigation” and “A single missing signature, an unexplained gap in documentation, or an unclear transfer record can result in crucial evidence being deemed inadmissible.”
The following seven critical chain of custody issues became central to Read’s defense strategy and ultimately contributed to her acquittal on murder charges:
- Taillight Fragment Collection Problems
The most significant chain of custody issue involved the collection of taillight fragments from Karen Read’s vehicle. The reconstruction of Karen Read’s taillight from fragments found in front of 34 Fairview over a 3-week period may have inadvertently boosted the defense’s case. The defense successfully argued that the extended three-week collection period raised serious questions about when the fragments were actually deposited at the scene and whether they could have been planted or contaminated during this prolonged timeframe.
- John O’Keefe’s Sweater Evidence
The defense “had a series of concerns about the chain of custody of the sweater” worn by victim John O’Keefe on the night he died. This was particularly crucial evidence as it could contain DNA, blood spatter patterns, or other forensic evidence that would help determine how O’Keefe sustained his fatal injuries. The defense questioned gaps in documentation regarding who handled the sweater, when it was collected, and how it was stored.
- Untested Blood Evidence from Red Solo Cups
A glaring oversight in evidence handling emerged when A Massachusetts State Police forensic expert revealed that potential blood samples from red Solo cups that Canton Police collected were never tested. This represented a complete failure in the chain of custody process, as potentially crucial evidence was collected but never properly analyzed or preserved according to standard protocols.
- DNA Collection Deficiencies
The investigation showed significant gaps in DNA evidence collection procedures. “questioned why there was no swabbing of the wounds on O’Keefe’s arm for DNA” that could have identified his attacker. This failure to collect DNA evidence from O’Keefe’s wounds represented a critical break in the investigative chain that could have provided definitive proof of what happened.
- Vehicle Condition Documentation Inconsistencies
Testimony revealed concerning discrepancies in how Read’s vehicle was documented. A Dighton Police Sergeant testified that Karen Read’s taillight was “not completely damaged” when the SUV was towed, which directly contradicted other evidence and testimony about the extent of damage. This inconsistency raised questions about when the damage occurred and whether the vehicle’s condition was properly documented throughout the custody chain.
- Lead Investigator Michael Proctor’s Compromised Position
Lead investigator Michael Proctor who is admittedly friendly with Chris and Julie Albert is being accused by the defense of planting evidence at the crime scene to frame Karen Read. The case put state and local law enforcement under the microscope, particularly in light of the crass texts ex-Trooper Michael Proctor sent friends, family, and coworkers while leading the investigation. This created a fundamental conflict of interest that compromised the entire chain of custody, as the lead investigator had personal relationships with key figures in the case.
- Digital Evidence and Search History Tampering Allegations
The case also involved questions about digital evidence handling, including Hyde testified that the browser suggested ‘How long to digest food,’ during the 6:24 search making it more suspicious regarding Google searches allegedly made by Read. The defense argued that digital evidence could have been manipulated or misrepresented, highlighting another failure in maintaining proper custody protocols for electronic evidence.
The Broader Impact: Following Hub Investigative Group Standards
The Karen Read case serves as a textbook example of what the Hub Investigative Group warns against. “Chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation and paper trail that records the collection, handling, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence” and “This documentation must account for every person who handled the evidence, when they handled it, why they handled it, and what they did with it.”
The Hub Investigative Group emphasizes that “The reason for establishing a chain of custody is to prevent substitution of, tampering with, mistaking the identity of, damaging, altering, contaminating, misplacing the evidence.” Multiple failures in the Read case violated these fundamental principles.
Legal Consequences and Lessons Learned
The trial featured dozens of witnesses, including a series of experts who, at times, offered highly technical testimony. Those specialists aimed to fill in an evidentiary record that included no eyewitness accounts or video of the events that left O’Keefe mortally wounded outside the suburban home. However, the chain of custody failures created reasonable doubt that technical testimony could not overcome.
Additionally, they say he has restructured the Division of Investigative Services to create additional supervision and enhance accountability. At the conclusion of her second trial, Karen Read was found not guilty of the murder of John O’Keefe, demonstrating how chain of custody failures can lead to acquittals even in high-profile cases with significant physical evidence.
The Massachusetts State Police response acknowledging the need for restructuring and enhanced accountability validates the defense’s arguments about systemic failures in evidence handling procedures.
Conclusion
The Karen Read case demonstrates that following proper chain of custody protocols isn’t merely bureaucratic procedure—it’s essential for ensuring justice. As the Hub Investigative Group concludes, “maintaining an unbroken chain of custody isn’t just a procedural requirement—it’s a professional and ethical obligation to ensure that evidence speaks truthfully and justice prevails.”
The seven critical failures in this case serve as a cautionary tale for law enforcement agencies nationwide about the paramount importance of maintaining rigorous evidence handling standards from crime scene to courtroom.
Sources:
- Hub Security and Investigative Group. “Chain of Custody is The Unbroken Link to Every Investigation
- Various news reports from CBS Boston, NBC Boston, Court TV, CNN, and AP News covering the Karen Read trial and retrial proceedings.
- National Institute of Justice. “Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert – Chain of Custody.
